On Monday, the Supreme Court allowed the Trump administration to use racial profiling in its militarized immigration raids across Los Angeles, halting an injunction that had barred officers from targeting Latinos based on ethnicity. The court did not explain the reason for its shadow docket order, which appeared to split 6–3 along ideological lines. In dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor warned that the decision was “unconscionably irreconcilable with our nation’s constitutional guarantees,” opening the door to violent persecution of Latinos—including American citizens—by “masked agents with guns.” The majority did not respond to this extraordinary charge, perhaps because it is so obviously true.

  • Maple Engineer@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    105
    ·
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    It’s time to purge the Supreme Court. It’s clear that they don’t give a shIt about the law or the constitution. They are the activist judges the Republicans always whined about.

    • F/15/Cali@threads.net@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      6 months ago

      People put out these ideas, but I rarely see who or how they’d like them to be implemented. Who would you want to initiate the purge? Any democrat president fine?

      • Maple Engineer@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        24
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        There are several examples from antiquity that show that the people will solve the problem of the government doesn’t.

        • Tinidril@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          6 months ago

          The vast majority of the time, the replacement ends up being worse. It’s tricky business overthrowing a government, and the ones that end up on top are usually the most bloodthirsty and least ethical.

          • Maple Engineer@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            6 months ago

            Yes. Revolutions are almost always bloody and the result is almost always worse. The people, though, will have a taste for revolution and the second comes easier.

      • resipsaloquitur@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        6 months ago

        There’s a mechanism for impeaching Supreme Court justices, which would apply to the six criminals.

        Or, just ignore them and start a parallel court. If they won’t do their job, why keep listening to them?

      • Maple Engineer@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        Biden could have expanded the Supreme Court but he couldn’t have purged it. It takes a 3/4 vote in the Senate to impeach a Supreme Court Justice.

        • WhoIsTheDrizzle@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          6 months ago

          Right, that was one option. Clarence Thomas has clear cases of corruption as well that could be pursued outside of the impeachment process, right?

      • Maple Engineer@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        6 months ago

        Being legal doesn’t make something right. The fascists have so stacked the system with Supreme Court and Circuit Court justices who don’t have a damn about the constitution that it would take a generation of concerted effort to correct IF they weren’t fighting tooth and nail to protect the advantage and obstruct change. The only way to really solve this problem is to burn the system down and rebuild it as what it was intended to be. Unrestricted capitalism has failed the people. It’s time for the people to tear it down and rebuildd to their advantage.

        • tamal3@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          6 months ago

          Sounds like you’re on board for the revolution right away, but it is legitimate to ask if we can fix the problems of this Supreme Court within the system we currently exist in.

          I’m not sure whether some of these powers are executive or congressional, but past presidents have talked about adding more justices to the court, and I’ve also heard mention of removing lifetime appointments. I think the first is an executive power and the second is congressional? I’m also not sure how this specific situation can be dealt with now that the ruling has been made, but it sure seems like this court is disregarding precedence left and right… Sorry, I’m not a legal scholar, but I’m also interested in the answer to this question.

          • Maple Engineer@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            6 months ago

            It will be VERY difficult to fix the Supreme Court without burning it to the ground. Trump appointed young, right wing extremists who will likely serve for 40 or 50 years. If one or more of the old conservatives retired over the next few months he will do the same thing again, likely someone who is even worse. Impeaching a Supreme Court Justice requires a 2/3 majority vote in the Senate which is stacked to favour the Republicans by the ridiculous electoral college. The chances of reforming the Supreme Court in the next lifetime are approaching zero.

            Reform, true reform, will involve fixing the Supreme Court, elections, and education but also regulation, banking, and wealth inequality. The Republicans have for years obstructed when the Democrats were in power and lied and cheated and stretched the law while they were in power. It’s a one way valve. The democrats can’t do anything because of Republican obstructionism and they don’t seem to be able to stop the back sliding when they are in opposition.

            I would love to see a government made up of AOCs, and Kat Abughazalehs, Zohran Mamdanis, and Jasmine Crocketts but even if you end up with a government of those people the Republicans who are left and the Republican governors will obstruct change for a generation at least.

            In order to effect real change you would need at least 3/4 of the states to be solidly in Democratic hands with 2/3 of Congress in Democratic hands.

  • grue@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    48
    ·
    6 months ago

    This is tyranny. Literal and explicit, without exaggeration.

    Understand that and act accordingly.

    • smayonak@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      6 months ago

      The court did not address the worst rights violations: the ice agents refused to return the victims’ Real ID (driver’s license) and they probably copied his phone.

      Meaning after taking his ID they can then indefinitely incarcerate him for not having ID. They can also prevent him from driving because he does not have a driver’s license.

      And they added his data to a criminal database along with all of his social contacts and communication.

    • philosloppy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      6 months ago

      yeah, it turns out unelected, lifetime appointees with the power to interpret the law with no oversight was a bad idea.

      • Ascrod@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        6 months ago

        Technically, Congress can impeach supreme court justices, but that depends on Congress being functional, which it hasn’t been for a long time.

        • philosloppy@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          6 months ago

          impeachment in US governance has always been a joke and a partisan cudgel used or withheld on the whims of whoever happens to be in power, with some notable exceptions.

          Case in point: the only Supreme Court Justice to be impeached was reinstated because the proceedings, instigated by then-president Jefferson, was very unambiguously politically motivated.

          • Ascrod@midwest.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            6 months ago

            Never said it wasn’t a political process. I guess what I’m saying is that I’d like a more functional and representative congress that can keep rogue judges in check. And maybe term limits on supreme justices.

    • missfrizzle@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      6 months ago

      Kavanaugh did, in a concurrence. I strongly disagree with his Opinion but at least he put words to paper. the others didn’t, so I assume the conservatives are fighting about the legal basis for their ruling.

      they will have to eventually explain themselves at least, once this case makes it to the regular docket.

  • dhork@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    32
    ·
    6 months ago

    When the alien anthropologists find the burnt out husk of our world in the (not so far) future and try to figure out what the hell happened, I hope they find Sotomayor’s writings and realize not everyone was batshit crazy.

  • thebudman420@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    29
    ·
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    Did they just erase the 14th Amendment and made it null and void? https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiv I get it now. It says no State and not no federal. Federal is not a State.

    "Section 1.

    All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

    • CubitOom@infosec.pubOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      38
      ·
      6 months ago

      I am not a lawyer so don’t take this as legal advice. However it seems to me that the Supreme Court really doesn’t give a shit about the law, the Constitution, or our rights.

      • RampantParanoia2365@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        6 months ago

        That’s been true since they decided corporations are indistinguishable from a single human being.

        Insert meme with photos of an enormous crowd, and one single person, and Pam claiming they’re the same photo.

      • GreenKnight23@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        6 months ago

        also not a lawyer, but I don’t think it’s required to see the vile shit that gas been packed into our government.

    • Formfiller@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      6 months ago

      They gutted the 14th when they allowed Trump to run. They also used it to justify corporate personhood. Facists don’t really uphold anything ever except their own corruption and bigotry.

      • khannie@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        6 months ago

        Never heard of that before so for others:

        A Terry stop in the United States allows the police to briefly detain a person based on reasonable suspicion of involvement in criminal activity. Reasonable suspicion is a lower standard than probable cause which is needed for arrest.

        Wikipedia link.

  • khannie@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    23
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    6 months ago

    As an outsider I’m genuinely shocked. So much for the melting pot. :(

    The fact that the conservatives didn’t bother to explain their reasoning is entirely damning.

    • TheObviousSolution@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      6 months ago

      What, you think people weren’t just bidding on George Zimmerman’s paintings for his artistic capacity? Incidentally, someone who would have been prime illegal ICE detainment material had he not signaled as he did to the MAGA crowd. I imagine he’s their “one good Hispanic”.

  • SoftestSapphic@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    20
    ·
    6 months ago

    It’s up to armed communities to now protect ourselves from the federal government.

    Buy guns before they start blocking access.